This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

Originally Posted by nota bene

Spare me your snarkiness please. I am unaware of any studies of pubescent girls taking Plan B. This could be, of course, because it's not widely available to them yet. In the meantime, I have pointed to multiple drugs that have been regarded as safe that turned out not to be. It's not unreasonable to worry that this new pill will be any different, particularly since children will have access to it.

Exactly! What is the tude all about anyway?

Anyhow, the part I bolded, absolutely true. We hear about this ALL the time. They are always removing drugs from the market because of dangerous side effects. Clinical studies do not always yield effective results. And your point about children having access to it making us all the more concerned is SPOT ON!

Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

Originally Posted by CanadaJohn

So, according to you and your source, a woman and her doctor can basically commit a fraud on an insurance company by getting a prescription for an over the counter drug and the government is in on the scam, forcing the insurance company to not only pay for the fraudulent prescription but to also pay for the doctor visit and the writing of the prescription. And people wonder why healthcare in America costs so much.

Actually, I believe any medication given in a hospital and/or ER is "prescription", even Tylenol.
I know, it's dumb. Doctors!

Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

Originally Posted by joko104

Message #20 on page 2 of this thread. Most notable is the potential for a ectopic pregnancy. I could find other material to explain this can be lethal. There are, of course, other dangerous side effects.

A plus of selling them out of the pharmacy and with a record kept, but no prescription, could address this somewhat by basic warning being given. It is unlikely a 16 year old would (or even could) read the micro legalistic print the put on warning sheets.

I agree that they should be dispensed by a pharmacist, and thanks for the info

Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

Originally Posted by nota bene

Spare me your snarkiness please. I am unaware of any studies of pubescent girls taking Plan B. This could be, of course, because it's not widely available to them yet. In the meantime, I have pointed to multiple drugs that have been regarded as safe that turned out not to be. It's not unreasonable to worry that this new pill will be any different, particularly since children will have access to it.

My understanding is that pubescent girls have taken it in other countries.

Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

My understanding is that pubescent girls have taken it in other countries.

And your concern applies to every single drug. Every single one

Please provide the links to foreign studies of pubescent girls, and thank you.

Meanwhile, you're trying to trivialize the discussion by dismissing concerns as standard for every drug. This may be true, but the current discussion is about little girls, young females, taking hormonal drugs.

I have provided specific examples that mark the development of such hormonal drugs--the earliest of "the pill," Premarin, RU-86, and Jaz. Each one of these was perfectly "safe" for "most women." Except that they weren't safe enough.

You show me evidence of those foreign studies, and please make them longitudinal and representative of the effects of Plan B over time for these pubescent girls.

Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

Please provide the links to foreign studies of pubescent girls, and thank you.

Request denied. The FDA has reviewed the evidence and their medical professionals have come to the conclusion that it is safe. That's good enough for me.

If it's not good enough for you, then you can post evidence that this drug poses a significant risk to pubescent females.

Meanwhile, you're trying to trivialize the discussion by dismissing concerns as standard for every drug. This may be true, but the current discussion is about little girls, young females, taking hormonal drugs.

I have provided specific examples that mark the development of such hormonal drugs--the earliest of "the pill," Premarin, RU-86, and Jaz. Each one of these was perfectly "safe" for "most women." Except that they weren't safe enough.

You show me evidence of those foreign studies, and please make them longitudinal and representative of the effects of Plan B over time for these pubescent girls.

No, there's no "may be true" about it. The specific concern you mention applies to every single drug, OTC or not. Your "think of the children" argument also applies to every single drug, not just drugs with hormones in them.

Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

Originally Posted by nota bene

I would too. I keep thinking about how "the pill" was safe. How Premarin was safe. How RU-86 was safe. How Jaz was safe. And how this new pill may only be equally as safe or far more dangerous when used by children whose bodies are still developing.

Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

Request denied. The FDA has reviewed the evidence and their medical professionals have come to the conclusion that it is safe. That's good enough for me.

If it's not good enough for you, then you can post evidence that this drug poses a significant risk to pubescent females.

No, there's no "may be true" about it. The specific concern you mention applies to every single drug, OTC or not. Your "think of the children" argument also applies to every single drug, not just drugs with hormones in them.

So you aren't able to provide stats on any longitutinal studies conducted. No surprise to me; I doubt that there have been any. But you did make reference to foreign studies, so it seems to me that you'd be able to provide links to these. Why aren't you being forthcoming when you've made this claim?

Let me repeat: We don't know what the effect on pubescent and/or pre-pubescent girls are. We know only that other hormonal "miracle solutions" have been in the long term for adult women, and it is upon this fact that I base my point.

So to what part of "the pill's" long-term effects and Premarin's and RU-86's and etc. do you object? Are you seriously unable because of your pre-set views to acknowledge legit concerns over hormonal pills' effects on little girls when there is no evidence over the long term that they are safe?